easyCBM
Proficient Math (formerly CCSS Math)

Summary

easyCBM® is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are general outcome curriculum-based measures, or CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year’s worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level. All easyCBM mathematics measures have been developed with reference to specific content in mathematics (i.e., the Common Core State Standards [CCSS] in Mathematics for the CCSS Math measures) and developed using Item Response Theory (IRT). In Grades K–8, easyCBM provides three CCSS Math screening forms to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and 10 forms in CCSS Math to be used to monitor progress.

Where to Obtain:
Developer: Behavioral Research & Teaching (BRT), Dept. of Ed., Univ. of Oregon | Publisher: Riverside Assessments, LLC
District accounts: orders@riversideinsights.com | Individual classroom teacher use: support@easycbm.com
District accounts: Riverside Insights Customer Service, One Pierce Place, Suite 900W, Itasca, IL 60143 | Individual classroom teacher use: BRT, 175 Lokey Education, 5262 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
District accounts: 800.323.9540 | Individual classroom teacher use: 541.346.3535
District acounts: www.riversideinsights.com/solutions/easycbm | Individual classroom teacher use: easycbm.com
Initial Cost:
$5.10 per student
Replacement Cost:
$5.10 per student per year
Included in Cost:
easyCBM is available for districts through Riverside Insights on a per-student, annual subscription basis. That price includes use of all assessments and manuals. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each. easyCBM is also available in a Teacher Deluxe edition directly through BRT at the University of Oregon for individual classroom teacher use. The Teacher Deluxe edition has an annual licensing fee of $39.99/year for one teacher account with up to 200 students. It grants teachers access to the full array of easyCBM measures and reports. All resources and trainings required for implementation are included with the annual subscription at no additional cost. This includes embedded trainings on test administration and interpretation of results, which are provided through the easycbm website.
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. All mathematics items have embedded read-aloud supports, providing students with the option of hearing any mathematics item (question stem or response option) that requires reading by clicking on a speaker icon. These “read-aloud” options are available in both English and Spanish for all the mathematics items that include words. The system enables testing sessions to be broken up into small chunks of time to accommodate students who have this identified need. Districts are directed to use their established practices for accommodations as needed.
Training Requirements:
Less than one hour of training. In year one, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each.
Qualified Administrators:
Administrators are expected to have basic student management skills and be familiar with using websites.
Access to Technical Support:
Help desk via email and phone
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Small group
  • Large group
  • Computer-administered
  • Other: The easyCBM CCSS Math measures are optimized for online administration, but can also be taken paper/pencil with teachers entering students’ responses into the system after the test has been completed. The measures are designed for group administration (with the number of students limited only by the number of available computers/tablets and adults to supervise the testing environment).
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 0 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
Administration Time:
  • 20 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
easyCBM® is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are general outcome curriculum-based measures, or CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year’s worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level. All easyCBM mathematics measures have been developed with reference to specific content in mathematics (i.e., the Common Core State Standards [CCSS] in Mathematics for the CCSS Math measures) and developed using Item Response Theory (IRT). In Grades K–8, easyCBM provides three CCSS Math screening forms to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and 10 forms in CCSS Math to be used to monitor progress.
Is your tool designed to measure progress towards an end-of-year goal (e.g., oral reading fluency) or progress towards a short-term skill (e.g., letter naming fluency)?
selected
not selected
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).
not selected 0-4 years old
selected 5 years old
selected 6 years old
selected 7 years old
selected 8 years old
selected 9 years old
selected 10 years old
selected 11 years old
selected 12 years old
selected 13 years old
selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.
selected Students in general education
selected Students with disabilities
selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading
not selected Global Indicator of Reading Competence
not selected Listening Comprehension
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Phonemic Awareness
not selected Decoding
not selected Passage Reading
not selected Word Identification
not selected Comprehension

Spelling & Written Expression
not selected Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
not selected Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics
selected Global Indicator of Mathematics Comprehension
selected Early Numeracy
selected Mathematics Concepts
selected Mathematics Computation
selected Mathematics Application
selected Fractions
selected Algebra

Other
Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:
Note: Different grade levels cover different math constructs, as outlined in the CCSS for Mathematics.

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:
Email Address
District accounts: orders@riversideinsights.com | Individual classroom teacher use: support@easycbm.com
Address
District accounts: Riverside Insights Customer Service, One Pierce Place, Suite 900W, Itasca, IL 60143 | Individual classroom teacher use: BRT, 175 Lokey Education, 5262 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
Phone Number
District accounts: 800.323.9540 | Individual classroom teacher use: 541.346.3535
Website
District acounts: www.riversideinsights.com/solutions/easycbm | Individual classroom teacher use: easycbm.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$5.10
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$5.10
Unit of cost
student
Duration of license
year
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
easyCBM is available for districts through Riverside Insights on a per-student, annual subscription basis. That price includes use of all assessments and manuals. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each. easyCBM is also available in a Teacher Deluxe edition directly through BRT at the University of Oregon for individual classroom teacher use. The Teacher Deluxe edition has an annual licensing fee of $39.99/year for one teacher account with up to 200 students. It grants teachers access to the full array of easyCBM measures and reports. All resources and trainings required for implementation are included with the annual subscription at no additional cost. This includes embedded trainings on test administration and interpretation of results, which are provided through the easycbm website.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. All mathematics items have embedded read-aloud supports, providing students with the option of hearing any mathematics item (question stem or response option) that requires reading by clicking on a speaker icon. These “read-aloud” options are available in both English and Spanish for all the mathematics items that include words. The system enables testing sessions to be broken up into small chunks of time to accommodate students who have this identified need. Districts are directed to use their established practices for accommodations as needed.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? (Select all that apply)
selected
selected
not selected

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

What is the administration context?
selected
selected    If small group, n=
selected    If large group, n=
selected
selected
If other, please specify:
The easyCBM CCSS Math measures are optimized for online administration, but can also be taken paper/pencil with teachers entering students’ responses into the system after the test has been completed. The measures are designed for group administration (with the number of students limited only by the number of available computers/tablets and adults to supervise the testing environment).

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
20
per (student/group/other unit)
student

Additional scoring time:
Time in minutes
0
per (student/group/other unit)
student

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
10
per (grade/level/unit)
grade

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can multiple students be rated concurrently by one administrator?
If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
Less than one hour of training. In year one, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each.
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Administrators are expected to have basic student management skills and be familiar with using websites.
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
Help desk via email and phone

Scoring

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What types of scores result from the administration of the assessment?
Score
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Frequency
not selected Duration
not selected Interval
not selected Latency
not selected Raw score
Conversion
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Rate
not selected Percent
not selected Standard score
not selected Subscale/ Subtest
not selected Composite
not selected Stanine
not selected Percentile ranks
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected IRT based scores
Interpretation
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Error analysis
not selected Peer comparison
not selected Rate of change
not selected Dev. benchmarks
not selected Age-Grade equivalent
How are scores calculated?
not selected Manually (by hand)
selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
Yes

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
not selected Standard score
selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
not selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.
Students receive one point for every item answered correctly. The final score is the sum of all items answered correctly on the measure. The Grades K–2 CCSS Math progress monitoring measures include 25 items while the forms at Grades 3–8 each have a total of 30.
Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?
Yes
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide benchmarks for the slopes?
No
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide percentile ranks for the slopes?
No
What is the basis for calculating slope and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

Describe the tool’s approach to progress monitoring, behavior samples, test format, and/or scoring practices, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.
The authors have approached progress monitoring from two perspectives with respect to (a) goal level sampling from nationally framed standards and (b) scaling. The test format focuses on principles of universal design with individually administered tasks. Scoring practices emphasize objectivity with diagnostic information for teachers and immediate feedback for students. The authors used the CCSS in Mathematics as a guideline to developing the easyCBM CCSS Math measures. From a scaling perspective, the authors used Item Response Theory (IRT) to design alternate forms so they are comparable. A common-person, common-item equating design was used to scale all items. Approximately 250 students responded to multiple item sets, and each test form contained items common across forms. The equated item scale scores and model fit statistics were used to (a) identify items of similar difficulty, (b) estimate student equated scores, and (c) remove/revise items of poor psychometric quality. The authors then placed the items into final alternate forms for progress monitoring so that each form included items with similar levels of difficulty. The authors generally placed easier items and interspersed common items near the beginning of the form, as many measures are timed, and students would then be assured of a sensitive measure for estimating their ability. N.B. IRT analyses were used to equate the forms but not to make the scales; rather, all outcomes are based on raw scores. See the Technical Manual: easyCBM detailing this process (attached). For all computer-based tests, the student administration is compatible with popular browsers (PC: Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Firefox, Mac: Safari, Chrome, and Firefox). Furthermore, the computer display was optimized for a clear presentation of the item, with large-option buttons to facilitate option selection, and ‘next’ buttons to assure easy navigation in moving forward or backward across questions. Audio recordings are available on the online testing platform in both English and Spanish language for of every mathematics item stem and response option that require reading.

Rates of Improvement and End of Year Benchmarks

Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified in your manual or published materials?
No
If yes, specify the growth standards:
Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance specified in your manual or published materials?
Yes
If yes, specify the end-of-year performance standards:
Spring norms based on representative national sample (raw score corresponding to performance at the 50th percentile). Grade K: raw score of 19 Grade 1: raw score of 21 Grade 2: raw score of 20 Grade 3: raw score of 20 Grade 4: raw score of 23 Grade 5: raw score of 22 Grade 6: raw score of 20 Grade 7: raw score of 19 Grade 8: raw score of 20 See easyCBM Norms, 2014 Edition (attached).
What is the basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth and end of year benchmarks?
selected
not selected
not selected Other
If other, please specify:
False

If norm-referenced, describe the normative profile.

National representation (check all that apply):
Northeast:
selected New England
selected Middle Atlantic
Midwest:
selected East North Central
selected West North Central
South:
selected South Atlantic
selected East South Central
selected West South Central
West:
selected Mountain
selected Pacific

Local representation (please describe, including number of states)
Date
2012-2013
Size
2000 per grade
Gender (Percent)
Male
50%
Female
50%
Unknown
SES indicators (Percent)
Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
Other SES Indicators
Race/Ethnicity (Percent)
White, Non-Hispanic
50%
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Unknown
Disability classification (Please describe)


First language (Please describe)


Language proficiency status (Please describe)
Do you provide, in your user’s manual, norms which are disaggregated by race or ethnicity? If so, for which race/ethnicity?
selected White, Non-Hispanic
not selected Black, Non-Hispanic
not selected Hispanic
not selected American Indian/Alaska Native
not selected Asian/Pacific Islander
selected Other
not selected Unknown

If criterion-referenced, describe procedure for specifying criterion for adequate growth and benchmarks for end-of-year performance levels.

Describe any other procedures for specifying adequate growth and minimum acceptable end of year performance.
Note: The authors also developed a set of norms using a stratified random sample of students by gender and ethnicity-race (white female, white male, non-white female, non-white male). Race and ethnicity were aggregated, as the count of students with complete data for both categories was insufficient for disaggregation. In this process, Hispanic students were counted as “non-white” even when lacking a race designation other than “white.”

Performance Level

Reliability

Grade Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Internal consistency was investigated using Cronbach’s alpha, perhaps the most common measure of internal consistency. The authors supplemented these indices with split-half reliability estimates using all possible split-half comparisons. The means of the split-half estimates are reported in the table below.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
A large sample collected across the country was used for investigation. Measures from each of the Fall, Winter, and Spring test windows were evaluated in Grades 3–8. The proportion of male students across grades varied from 50.8% to 52.4%. Across grades, approximately 3–4% of students identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native; 3–4% identified as Asian; 11–12% identified as Black or African American; 0–1% identified as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 5–10% identified as two or more races; 59–62% identified as White; and 10–16% were unknown or refused to report. These percentages are representative of the general student population in the United States.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Item-level data were extracted from the easyCBM database. Correct responses were coded 1 while incorrect responses were coded 0. The psych package in R (an open source system for statistical computation and graphics designed by Northwestern University) was used to calculate both indicators of internal consistency.

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., model-based evidence, internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients). Include detail about the type of reliability data, statistic generated, and sample size and demographic information.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
The following studies are included as attachments with this submission. Nese, J.F.T., Anderson, D., Irvin, P. S., & Alonzo, J. (2018). In-Brief: Reliability of the slope of the easyCBM® math measures. (Technical Report No. 1804). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_1804 Wray, K. A., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G. (2014). Internal consistency of the easyCBM CCSS math measures grades K–8 (Technical Report No. 1405). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_1405 Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G. (2013). easyCBM CCSS math item scaling and test form revision (2012–2013): Grades 6–8 (Technical Report No. 1313). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_1313
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
Yes

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
The following studies are included as attachments with this submission: Nese, J.F.T., Anderson, D., Irvin, P. S., & Alonzo, J. (2018). In-Brief: Reliability of the slope of the easyCBM® math measures. (Technical Report No. 1804). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_1804 Wray, K. A., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G. (2014). Internal consistency of the easyCBM CCSS math measures grades K–8 (Technical Report No. 1405). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_1405 Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G. (2013). easyCBM CCSS math item scaling and test form revision (2012–2013): Grades 6–8 (Technical Report No. 1313). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_1313

Validity

Grade Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Unconvincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
We describe two separate studies. STUDY 1: We analyzed the relation between the easyCBM CCSS Math assessment (Grades 3–8) and the Mathematics section of the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA). The widespread use of SBA across the United States makes it an appropriate measure to use for analyzing criterion validity (both predictive and concurrent). It is external to the easyCBM system and is considered a high-stakes assessment, as it is the measure many states are using for their statewide large-scale assessment system. STUDY 2: We analyzed the relation between the easyCBM CCSS Math Winter Benchmark assessment (Grades 6–8) and the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10), given one week later. We selected the SAT-10 based on its documented validity evidence (Pearson, 2004) and because both tests were designed to measure a similar construct (mathematics).
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
STUDY 1: Data for this study came from a convenience sample provided by two school districts in the Pacific Northwest. All students enrolled in school and present during the three-week easyCBM Benchmark assessment windows in the Fall (September 2014), Winter (January 2015) and Spring (May 2015) were administered the easyCBM assessments. All enrolled students were likewise administered the Smarter Balanced Assessments during the testing window provided by the State in the Spring of 2015. The data set provided by the districts included easyCBM CCSS Math, Passage Reading Fluency, Vocabulary, and Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension (MCRC) as well as Smarter Balanced Math and English Language Arts total scores for students enrolled in Grades 3–8. District 1 provided data for Grades 3–8, while District 2 provided data for Grades 4–8. In addition, District 1 provided demographic information, while District 2 (approximately ¼ the size of the first district) did not. Demographics of the sample are provided in Table 1 Sample Demographics, Study 1, included as an attachment to this submission. Because of the missing demographics from a large proportion of the sample, the percentages for each of the demographic variables are calculated based on the students in the sample whose data included full-resolution demographic information. During data cleaning, data from students who were administered the Alternate Assessment rather than the General Education Assessment were removed from the dataset prior to further analyses. In all, six students each from Grades 4, 6, and 7 and three students from Grade 5 were removed from the dataset in this step. Data from all additional students were retained. STUDY 2: This convenience sample came from a random sample of students per grade (grades 6, 7, and 8) within one school in the Pacific Northwest. The 6th grade sample (n = 67) included 33 girls, 8 students receiving special education services (SPED classification included: 1 identified as having an intellectual disability, 1 communication disorder, 1 other health impairment, and 6 learning disability). Of the 67 students, 6 were identified as English Language Learners and 42 received free (n=36) or reduced-price (n=6) meals. In all, 56 students in this sample were identified as white, 7 as Hispanic, 1 as Asian, and 3 as “other”. The 7th grade sample (n = 63) included 24 girls, 7 students receiving special education services (SPED classification included: 3 identified as having an intellectual disability, 1 other health impairment, and 3 learning disability). Of the 63 students, 3 were identified as English Language Learners, and 36 received free (n=31) or reduced-price (n=5) meals. In all, 49 students in this sample were identified as white, 7 as Hispanic, 2 as Black/African American, and 5 as “other”. The 8th grade sample (n = 64) included 38 girls, 6 students receiving special education services (SPED classification included: 1 Autism spectrum disorder, 1 other health impairment, and 4 learning disability). Of the 64 students, 0 were identified as English Language Learners, and 29 received free (n=22) or reduced-price (n=7) meals. In all, 51 students in this sample were identified as white, 10 as Hispanic, and 2 as “other”.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
In both studies, we analyzed the data using bivariate correlations and linear regression using the SPSS software.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
The following studies are included as attachments to this submission. Alonzo, J. (2016). The relation between Smarter Balanced and easyCBM mathematics and reading assessments. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1, 17–35. Access article through http://www.jsard.org/ Anderson, D., Rowley, B., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G. (2014). Criterion validity evidence for the easyCBM CCSS math measures: Grades 6–8 (Technical Report No. 1402). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_1402
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Data from both studies support the concurrent and predictive validity of the tool. Correlations between the easyCBM CCSS Math measures and two very different external measures of mathematics suggest that the easyCBM CCSS Math assessments are, indeed, capturing important information about students’ knowledge of mathematics. The easyCBM CCSS Math measures consistently predict student performance on other measures of mathematics.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.
Yes
If yes,
a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:
We ran DIF analyses for all the CCSS Math measures using the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) procedure with an iterative purification process. Items were evaluated by the delta MH statistic and assigned letter grades (A, B, or C) based on the recommendation of Holland and Thayer (1988).
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
We conducted DIF analyses for these sub-groups: gender, disability status, and race/ethnicity.
c. Describe the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements. Include magnitude of effect (if available) if bias has been identified.
Results indicated the CCSS Math measures are not biased against gender, disability status, or race/ethnicity. At all grade levels, and all seasons, the CCSS Math measures received a grade of “A” in the DIF analyses in all three of the groupings examined. See the attachment included with this submission for the table displaying the results.

Growth Standards

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe the sample, including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.
The analytic sample consisted of students who took easyCBM math progress monitoring measures during the 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 school years. All students in the sample were identified by their districts as needing intensive intervention in the specific skill area targeted by the assessments for which their data were included in this study.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
We included only those students identified as needing intensive intervention who had a minimum of 10 assessment scores for a given assessment measure with a minimum of 20 weeks between the first and last administration occasion.
Describe the analysis procedures.
Reliability of the slope is defined here as the ratio of the true score variance to the total variance. The true score variance is the random slope variance in a mixed effects growth model (lme4 package; Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015) in the R software environment (R Core Team, 2018). The total variance is the estimation of total variance of each student’s individual slope of improvement (R Core Team, 2018).

In the table below, report reliability of the slope (e.g., ratio of true slope variance to total slope variance) by grade level (if relevant).

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability of the slope data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

In the table below, report predictive validity of the slope (correlation between the slope and achievement outcome) by grade level (if relevant).
NOTE: The TRC suggests controlling for initial level when the correlation for slope without such control is not adequate.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published validity studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Do you have validity of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity of the slope data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published validity studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe the sample for these analyses, including size and characteristics:
The following numbers of students (by grade) participated in item piloting and IRT scaling: 731 (Grade K); 1,124 (Grade 1); 1,136 (Grade 2); 1,685 (Grade 3); 1,499 (Grade 4); 1,525 (Grade 5); 1,602 (Grade 6); 1,431 (Grade 7); and 1,100 (Grade 8). The sample is a convenience sample. Participating schools were asked to administer the CCSS Math measures to students who were in need of intensive intervention. Inclusion criteria included students whose IEPs or 504 plans specified math goals, students who had failed to make adequate growth in their Tier 2 interventions, and/or students who scored below the 25th percentile on national norms).
What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty?
At each grade level, there are 10 alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty.
If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance
Please see attached item difficulty tables.
If computer administered, how many items are in the item bank for each grade level?
Although the easyCBM CCSS Math assessments are optimized for online administration, they are not computer-adaptive tests. Rather, they use fixed-forms to control for difficulty across alternate forms.
If your tool is computer administered, please note how the test forms are derived instead of providing alternate forms:

Decision Rules: Setting & Revising Goals

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for how to set and revise goals?
No
If yes, specify the decision rules:
What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?
NOTE: The TRC expects evidence for this standard to include an empirical study that compares a treatment group to a control and evaluates whether student outcomes increase when decision rules are in place.

Decision Rules: Changing Instruction

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for when changes to instruction need to be made?
No
If yes, specify the decision rules:
What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?
NOTE: The TRC expects evidence for this standard to include an empirical study that compares a treatment group to a control and evaluates whether student outcomes increase when decision rules are in place.

Data Collection Practices

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.